Principals’ Perspectives: Professional Learning and Marginal Teachers on Formal Plans of Improvement

Year 2016, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 25 - 59, 15.07.2016

Sally J. Zepeda

https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2016.1.2

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This qualitative study examined the perspectives of principals related to professional development for teachers on formal plans of remediation for underperformance in the classroom.  The principles associated with job-embedded professional development as well as cognitive dissonance provided a basis for analyzing data collected throughout the interviews and analysis.  The population included 12 elementary, middle, and high school principals from 2school systems in the United States.  Data analysis from the interviews yielded three major findings clustered as themes related to:  1) Cognitive dissonance, professional development, and marginal teachers 2) Confidentiality trumps collaboration, and 3) Professional development by the numbers.  By examining professional development practices for underperforming teachers, the findings contribute to our understanding about some perspectives that school principals hold about a population of teachers at-risk.  Implications are offered. 

Keywords

Marginal teachers, Principal leadership, Professional development, Job-embedded learning

References

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat.115, 516 (Feb. 19, 2009).
• Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems in Abelson, R., Aronson, E., McGuire, W.J., Newcomb, T.M., Rosenberg, M.J. & Tannebaum, P.H. (Eds.). Cognitive consistency theories: A source book (pp. 5-27). Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
• Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.
• Blacklock, K. (2002). Dealing with an incompetent teacher. Principal, 81(4), 26-28. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/principal-archives
• Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003). The phenomenology of principal mistreatment: Teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 367-422.
• Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Bossert, S.T., Dwyer, D.C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G.V. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34–64.
• Bullmaster-Day, M. L. (2011). Let the learner do the learning: What we know about effective teaching. New York: Touro College, Lander Center for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://gse.touro.edu/research--outreach/resources--development/ literature-reviews/
• Callahan, K, & Sadeghi, L. (2014). TEACHNJ: An evaluation of two years of implementation. US-China Education Review A, 4(10), 728–736.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
• Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2013). Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching. New York, NY: Springer.
• Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2013). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Darling-Hammond, L., & Falk, B. (2013). Teacher learning: How student-performance assessments can support teacher learning. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
• Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (2011). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phil Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning professional status report on teacher development in the U. S. and abroad: Technical report. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudytechnicalreport2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0
• deMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. In K. de Marrais & S. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71.
• Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: University of Stanford Press.
• Fuhr, D. (1990). Supervising the marginal teacher: Here’s how. National Association of Elementary Teachers, 9(2), 1–4.
• Gall, M. D., & Acheson, K. A. (2010). Clinical supervision and teacher development (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
• Glatthorn, A. A. (1997). Differentiated supervision (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
• Hallinger, P.,&Heck, R. (2010) Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning, School Leadership and Management 30(2), 95-110.
• Hyener, R. H. (1985). Some guidlines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies, 8(3), 279-303.
• Jackson, C. M. (1997). Assisting marginal teachers: A training model. Principal, 77(1), 28-30.
• Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34-70.
• Kyriakides, L., Demetriou, D., & Charlambous C. (2006). Generating criteria for evaluating teachers through teacher effectiveness research. EducationalResearch, 48(1), 1–20.
• Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Retrieved from www .wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/documents/how-leadership-influences-student-learning.pdf
• Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Retrieved from www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school- leadership/key-research/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to- Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
• Lawrence, C. E., Vachon, M. K., Leake, D. O., & Leake, B. H. (1993). The marginal teacher: A step-by-step guide to fair procedures for identification and dismissal. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
• Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/practicalGuide.pdf
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Marks, H.M., & Printy, S.M. (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
• Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Mead, S., Rotherman, A., & Brown, R. (2012). The hangover: Thinking about the unintended consequences of the Nation’s teacher evaluation binge. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/
• McLeod, S. A. (2014). Cognitive dissonance. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
• Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.npbea.org/
• Nolan, J., Jr., & Hoover, L. A. (2011). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• O’Keefe, D.J. (1990), Persuasion: Theory and Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ponticell, J.A., & Zepeda, S.J. (2004). Confronting well-learned lessons in supervision and evaluation. The NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 43-59.
• Popham, W. J. (2013). On serving two masters: Formative and summative evaluation. Principal Leadership, 13(7), 18–22.
• Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability: What research says. Retrieved from National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research (CALDER) www.caldercenter.org/upload/CALDER-Research-and-Policy-Brief-8.pdf
• Schooling, P., Toth, M., & Marzano, R. J. (2010). Creating an aligned system to develop teachers within the federal Race to the Top initiative [White paper]. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.marzanoresearch.com/ free_resources/selected_research.aspx
• Sergiovanni, T. (1994) Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Smith, R. E. (2008). Human resources administration: A school-based perspective (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (2rd ed.). (pp. 445-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Stronge, J. H. (2010). Effective teachers = student achievement: What the research says. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
• Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Timperley, H. (2008). National education findings of assess to learn (AtoL) report. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
• Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector at the American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from https://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/charter_schools/research/ Administrator/Rush%20to%20Judgement%20Teacher%20Evaluation.pdf
• Tucker, P. (2001). Helping struggling teachers. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 52-55.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2004). New No Child Left Behind flexibility: Highly qualified teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html
• U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program executive summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executivesummary.pdf
• Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Author.
• Waters, J.T., & Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48-51.
• Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Kelling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness (2nd ed.). Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/assets/ documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed.pdf
• Wood, F.H., & Killian, J.E. (1998). Job-embedded learning makes the difference in school improvement. Journal of Staff Development, 19(1), 52–54.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Zepeda, S.J. (2006). Cognitive dissonance, supervision, and administrative team conflict.The International Journal of Educational Management, 20(3), 224-233.
• Zepeda, S.J. (2016). The leaders guide to working with underperforming teachers: Overcoming marginal teaching and getting results. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Zepeda, S.J. (2015). Job-embedded professional development: Support, collaboration, and learning in schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Zepeda, S.J., Jimenez, A., & Lanoue, P.D. (2015). New practices for a new day: Principal professional development to support learning cultures in schools. LEARNing Landscapes, 9(1), 303-319.
• Zepeda, S., & Ponticell, J. (1998). At cross-purposes: What do teachers need, want, and get from supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(1), 68-87.